A metaphor to explain why money should not be protected as Free Speech when it's

[Baitball Blogger]

used for campaign donations:

Imagine driving home, concentrating on getting home safely, and someone with money has been given the power to break the noise ordinance and uses it to stand on all four corners of an intersection, using a bullhorn to push their views.

By comparison, the rest of us are stuck in designated Free Speech areas.

We simply can't compete against people who have the money to use their money to spread their message.


This is just a metaphor. the truth is that money allows the rich to gain access to the decision-makers. The Supreme Court was insane when they approved Citizen's United. It's not a surprise that in this day and age, we're fighting to protect the integrity of our Democracy. The surprise is that the fascist haven't prevailed in their attempt to take over a country.

[Towlie]

1. It's a slippery slope to argue that whatever gets your message across is protected free speech.

 
←

[Goodheart]

2. If giving money is "speech" then none of the laws against bribery make any sense

"Here, sir, I think you're entitled to 100,000 bucks if you let me get away with this crime I'm about to commit."

"You're under arrest for bribery."

"I was only exercising my free speech rights."

[Baitball Blogger]

3. Someday we'll look back and see that they wrote in a loophole to bribery.

[genxlib]

4. I think there is a better model for political spending

Rather than consider it freedom of speech it should be considered like voting.

Everyone has a right to do it but no one has the right to do it more than others. If properly outlined, excess political spending would be considered as forbidden as excess voting.

Towards that end, I would only allow voters to donate to people that they can vote for. It makes little sense that voters in Texas can be giving money to a Florida Senate campaign for example. Either they work for their constituency or they are beholden to the funders from out of their area.

This would drive a lot of the influence out of politics because no one would be able to "own" more than one Representative or Senator.

[cojoel]

5. There is a term for spending money in any situation

That word is "commerce". And as is the case, the US Constitution's Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes". Only a hack-job from the Roberts Court would come up with any other explanation.

[Baitball Blogger]

6. +1